The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

Friday, April 14, 2017

So
far -- the administration in Washington, like its predecessors,
has done little to rein in one of the key sources of this growing global
phenomenon -- the Muslim Brotherhood.

The final report of the
Senate's "Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before
and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" revealed that
U.S.-stationed Saudi intelligence officers, who provided assistance to
the hijackers ahead of the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings,
were in direct contact with senior members of the American branch of the
Muslim Brotherhood.

During the Taliban regime in Kabul, the Brotherhood had training
camps in Afghanistan for Kashmiri militants fighting against India and
Central Asian states.

In his inaugural address
on January 20, U.S. President Donald Trump vowed to "unite the
civilized world against... and eradicate radical Islamic terrorism." So
far, however, the administration in Washington, like its predecessors,
has done little to rein in one of the key sources of this growing global
phenomenon -- the Muslim Brotherhood.

Founded by Sheikh Hassan al-Banna in Egypt in 1928, the Brotherhood does not always openly advocate violence. But its main agenda is to establish a worldwide Islamic Caliphate by way of the sword. As its motto reads: "The Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish."

The emblem of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its founder, Hassan al-Banna.

The Brotherhood's hostility towards the United States has been clear.
It not only backed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but founded al
Qaeda, nineteen of whose operatives perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

The final report of the Senate's "Joint Inquiry into Intelligence
Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September
11, 2001" -- released in December 2002 -- revealed that U.S.-stationed
Saudi intelligence officers, who provided assistance to the hijackers
ahead of the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings, were in direct
contact with senior members of the American branch of the Brotherhood.

"...use diverse and varied surveillance systems to gather
information...not look for confrontation with adversaries, at the local
or the global scale, which would be disproportionate...and master the
art of the possible on a temporary basis without abusing the basic
[Islamic] principles."

Unlike the Obama administration, which viewed the Brotherhood
"as a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al
Qaeda and the Islamic State," the new U.S. government is taking a
tougher rhetorical stance.

In his Senate confirmation hearings on January 11, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson referred to "agents of radical Islam like al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and certain elements within Iran."

Moderate Muslims, too, favor action against the Brotherhood. Lebanese
Shiite cleric Sheikh Mohammad Hajj Hassan, founder of the
American-Muslim Alliance, on the face of it possibly not the most
objective commentator on a predominately Sunni organization, called on
Trump to designate the Brotherhood as a "Foreign Terrorist
Organization."

"Terrorism is the enemy of the whole humanity, including
Muslims; these Takfiri [apostate] terrorist organizations distort the
real image of Islam and offen[d] Muslims who want to live in peace and
security with all segments of the society... This group since its
inception practiced killing crimes and terror attacks in the Arab world.
In Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and other countries their clerics call for
violence."

Washington can and should expect support, as well, from the civilized
international community in tackling the Brotherhood, which poses a threat
to the entire world. Indeed, the organization has active followers in
more than 70 countries. One of these is India, which has an obligation
to back the U.S. in the war against the Brotherhood and affiliate
terrorist organizations, such as ISIS.

New Delhi can ill afford to overlook that during the Taliban regime
in Kabul, the Brotherhood had training camps in Afghanistan for Kashmiri
militants fighting against India and Central Asian states.

The time is not only ripe for the U.S. and its allies to eradicate the Muslim Brotherhood; it is well overdue.

Jagdish N. Singhis a senior journalist based in New Delhi.Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10196/tackle-muslim-brotherhood Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Charlie Hebdo's physical massacre was -- followed by an intellectual one.

After two years and 238 deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorism, what did France do to defeat radical Islam? Almost nothing.

If Emmanuel Macron wins, France as we have known it can be
considered pretty much over. By blaming "colonialism" for French
troubles in the Arab world, and calling it "a crime against humanity",
he has effectively legitimized Muslim extremist violence against the
French Republic.

In just two years, Muslim organizations in France have dragged to
trial great writers such as Georges Bensoussan, Pascal Bruckner, and
Renaud Camus. It is the Islamists' dream coming true: seeing
"Islamophobes" on trial to restrict their freedom of expression. Charlie Hebdo's physical massacre was therefore followed by an intellectual one.

It was a sort of farewell to the army. During a brief visit to the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle
last December, French President François Hollande honored the French
soldiers involved in "Operation Chammal" against the Islamic State.
After two years and 238 deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorism, what
did France do to defeat radical Islam? Almost nothing.

It is this legacy of indifference that is at stake in the looming
French presidential elections. If Marine Le Pen or François Fillon win,
it means that France has rejected this autocratic legacy and wants to
try a different, braver way. If Emmanuel Macron
wins, France as we have known it can be considered pretty much over.
Macron is, for example, against taking away French nationality from
jihadists. Terrorism, Islam and security are almost absent from Macron's
vocabulary and platform, and he is in favor of lowering France's state
of emergency. By blaming "colonialism" for French troubles in the Arab
world, and calling it "a crime against humanity", he has effectively legitimized Muslim extremist violence against the French Republic.

"President Hollande said on November 15 that it would be
ruthless, we were at war ... but we do not make war! History shows that
in the eternal struggle between the shield and the sword, the sword is
still a step forward and winning".

In the past two years, France only used the shield.

France's fake war began in Paris with a massacre at the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. Twelve cartoonists and policemen were massacred by two brothers who shouted,
"We avenged Muhammad, we killed Charlie Hebdo". After a few days of
marches, vigils, candles and collective statements such as "Je Suis
Charlie", half of the French intelligentsia was ready to go and hide
underground, protected by the police. These are academics,
intellectuals, novelists, journalists. The most famous is Michel Houellebecq, the author of the book Submission. Then there is Éric Zemmour, the author of the book, Suicide Française ("The French Suicide"); then the team of Charlie Hebdo, along with its director, Riss (Laurent Sourisseau); Mohammed Sifaoui, a French-Algerian journalist who wrote Combattre le terrorisme islamiste ("Combating Islamist Terrorism"); Frédéric Haziza, radio journalist and author at the journal, Canard Enchaîné; and Philippe Val, the former director of Charlie Hebdo. The latest to run was the Franco-Algerian journalist Zineb Rhazaoui; surrounded by six policemen, she left Charlie Hebdo after saying that her newspaper had capitulated to terror and refused to run more cartoons of Muhammad.

"Charb? Where is Charb?" were the words that echoed in the offices of Charlie Hebdo
on January 7, 2015, the day he and his colleagues were murdered.
"Charb" was Stéphane Charbonnier, the editor of the magazine that had
published cartoons of Muhammad. Charb was working on a short book, On Blasphemy, Islamophobia and the true enemies of free expression, posthumously published. Charb's book attacked self-righteous intellectuals, who for years had been claiming that Charlie Hebdo
was responsible for its own troubles, a childlike view, popular
throughout Europe. It is based on the notion that if everyone would just
keep quiet, these problems would not exist. Presumably, therefore, if
no one had pointed out the threats of Nazism or Communism, Nazism and
Communism would have quietly have vanished of their own accord.
Unfortunately, that approach was tried; it did not work. The book also
criticized "sectarian activists", whom he said have been trying "to
impose on the judicial authorities the political concept of
'Islamophobia'".

As for "the Left", he wrote:
"It is time to end this disgusting paternalism of the intellectual
left" -- meaning its moral sanctimony. Charb delivered these pages to
his publisher on January 5. Two days later he was murdered.

Now, some of these people he was calling out are trying to hide their
cowardice by attacking him. In recent weeks, a number of cultural
events in France have tried to "deprogram"
the public from paying attention this extremely important book. A
theatrical adaptation of it, attended by one of the journalists of Charlie Hebdo,
Marika Bret, was scheduled to take place at the University of Lille.
However, the president of the University, Xavier Vandendriessche, said
he feared "excesses"
and the "atmosphere", so he eliminated Charb from the program. Twice.
The play's director, Gérald Dumont, sent a letter to the Minister of
Culture, Audrey Azoulay, mentioning "censorship".

During the past two years, the publishing industry itself has played a
central role in censoring and supporting censorship, by censoring
itself. The philosopher Michel Onfray refused to release his book, Thinking Islam, in French and it first came out in Italian. The German writer, Hamed Abdel Samad saw his book Der islamische Faschismus: Eine Analyse ("Islamic Fascism: An Analysis"), a bestseller in Germany, censored in French by the publishing house Piranha.

The French courts, meanwhile, revived le délit d'opinion -- a penal offense for expressing political opinions, now an "intellectual crime". It was explained by Véronique Grousset in Le Figaro:

"Insidiously, the law blurred the distinction between the
discussion of ideas and the personal attack. Many organizations are
struggling to bring their opponents to justice".

It means that the legal system is hauling writers and journalists to
court for expressing specific ideas, in particular criticism of Islam.

In just two years in France, Muslim organizations have dragged to trial great writers such as Georges Bensoussan, Pascal Bruckner, and Renaud Camus. It is the Islamists' dream coming true: seeing "Islamophobes" on trial to punish their freedom of expression.

Charlie Hebdo's physical massacre was therefore followed by an
intellectual one: today, Charb's important book cannot find a room in
France for a public reading; it should, instead, be protected as a
legacy of courage and truth.

Even in French theaters, free speech is being crushed. Films about Islam have been cancelled: "The Apostle" by Carron Director, on Muslim converts to Christianity; "Timbuktu" on the Islamist takeover of Mali, and Nicolas Boukhrief's "Made in France",
about a jihadist cell. A poster for "Made in France" -- a Kalashnikov
over the Eiffel Tower -- was already in the Paris metro when ISIS went
into action on the night of November 13, 2016. Immediately, the film's
release was suspended, with the promise that the film would be back in
theaters. "Made in France" is now only available "on-demand". Another
film, "Les Salafistes", was screened with a notice banning minors. The Interior Ministry called for a total ban.

After the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, the country seemed for a short time to return to normalcy. Meanwhile, thousands of Jews were packing up to leave France. At the request of local Jewish community leaders, the Jewish skullcap disappeared
from the streets of Marseille, and in Toulouse, after an Islamic
terrorist murdered a Jewish teacher and three children in 2012, 300 Jewish families pack up and left.

In the daily newspaper Le Figaro, Hadrien Desuin,
an expert on international relations, compared the last two years to
the "phony war" that France did not fight in 1939-40. Paris, while
declaring a war against Germany, as it now declares a war against
terrorism, simply refused to fight. For a whole year, France, crouching
behind a Maginot Line that it foolishly believed was invincible did not
fire a single gun against the Germans who were spreading throughout
Europe at the time. Similarly, General Vincent Desportes explains in his
book The Last Battle of France that Operation Sentinel, in which
French soldiers are now deployed in the streets, is a "show", and that
"the Islamic State is not afraid of our aircraft. You have to attack by
land, terrorizing. We have the means to do it, but it takes political
courage". According to Desportes, Operation Sentinel "changes nothing".

France's never-begun war on terror also collapsed around the three
most important measures: removing French citizenship from jihadists, "de-radicalizing" them and closing their salafist mosques.

There are at least 20 among 2,500 famous radical mosques that need to close now. The Territorial Information Center (SCRT) recommended that there are 124 salafist mosques in France that should close. Only Marine Le Pen has demanded that.

Three days after the November 13 Paris massacres, President Hollande
announced a constitutional reform that would strip French citizenship
from Islamic terrorists. Faced with the impossibility of finding a
shared text by both Houses, as well as with the resignation of his
Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, Hollande was forced to cancel the move.
It means that hundreds of French citizens who went to Syria for jihad
can now return to their country of origin and murder more innocent
people there.

The Bataclan Theater -- the scene of a massacre in which 90 people
were murdered and many others wounded on November 13, 2015 -- recently
reopened with a concert by the performer Sting. His last song was "Inshallah"
(Arabic for "If Allah Wills"). That is the state of France's last two
years: starting with "Allahu Akbar" ("Allah is the greatest"), chanted
by the jihadists who slaughtered 80 people, and ending with a phony
invocation to Allah by a British singer. "Inshallah," said Sting from
the stage, "that wonderful word". "Rebirth at the Bataclan," the newspaper Libération wrote as its headline.

The director of the Bataclan told Jesse Hughes,
the head of American band Eagles of Death Metal: "There are things you
cannot forgive." True. Except that France has forgiven everything. The
drawing on the cover of Charlie Hebdo after the massacre -- a weeping Muhammad saying, "All is forgiven" -- was the start of France's psychological surrender.

Left: The cover of Charlie Hebdo after the massacre of its staff --
a weeping Muhammad saying, "All is forgiven" -- was the start of
France's psychological surrender. Right: When the Bataclan Theater
(where 90 people were murdered in November 2015) recently reopened with a
concert by the performer Sting, his last song was "Inshallah" (Arabic
for "If Allah Wills").

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10193/france-direction Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Democrats have committed to overthrowing our government.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

What does #Resistance really mean? It means the overthrow of our government.

In this century, Democrats rejected the outcomes of two presidential elections won by Republicans. After Bush won, they settled for accusing him of being a thief, an idiot, a liar, a draft dodger and a mass murderer. They fantasized about his assassination and there was talk of impeachment. But elected officials gritted their teeth and tried to get things done.

This time around it’s “radically” different.

The official position, from the Senate to the streets, is “Resistance.” Leftist media outlets are feeding the faithful a fantasy that President Trump will be brought down. There is fevered speculation about the 25th Amendment, a coup or impeachment due to whatever scandal has been manufactured last.

This fantasy is part clickbait. Leftist media outlets are feeding the worst impulses of their readers. But there is a bigger and more disturbing radical endgame.

The left can be roughly divided into moderates and radicals. The distinction doesn’t refer to outcome; both want very similar totalitarian societies with very little personal freedom and a great deal of government control. Instead it’s about the tactics that they use to get to that totalitarian system.

The “moderates” believe in working from within the system to transform the country into a leftist tyranny. The “radicals” believe that the system is so bad that it cannot even be employed for progressive ends. Instead it needs to be discredited and overthrown by radicalizing a revolutionary base.

Radicals radicalize moderates by discrediting the system they want to be a part of. Where moderates seek to impose a false consensus from within the system, radicals attack the system through violent protests and terrorism. Their goal is to set off a chain of confrontations that make it impossible to maintain civil society and polarize the backlash and chaos into consolidating the left for total war.

That is what “Resistance” actually means.

A similar program implemented in Europe, with a covert alliance between Communists and Nazis, led to the deaths of millions, the destruction of much of Europe and the temporary triumph of the left.

The radical left’s efforts in America caused death and destruction but, despite the sympathy of many liberals for terrorist groups such as the Weathermen and the Black Panthers, failed to escalate because the majority of Democrats and even liberals did not accept the premise that our system was illegitimate.

That began to change this century.

64% of Democrats insisted that President Bush had not been legitimately elected. 49% declared that he was not a legitimate president. 22% vowed never to accept him no matter what he might do.

Anywhere from two-thirds to a quarter of the Democrats rejected the results of a presidential election, rejected the president and suspected him of conspiring to murder thousands of Americans.

The left was winning. Much of its natural “moderate” base viewed our government as illegitimate.

The left has declared that President Trump’s victory is illegitimate. The response is “Resistance.” That covers violent anti-government protesters, states declaring that they are no longer bound to follow Federal immigration law and Senators obstructing for the sake of obstruction.

It’s easy to get lost in the partisan turmoil of the moment, but it’s important to understand the implications. If two presidential elections were illegitimate, then our entire system of elections might be illegitimate. And indeed the left made exactly that case with its attack on the Electoral College.

The left pressed Dems to oppose President Trump for the sake of opposition. The goal wasn’t just spite. It was to break the government. When the left forced Senate Dems to filibuster President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, the filibuster became the first casualty of the fight. The goal of the radicals was to make bipartisan legislative activity impossible. Senate Democrats adopted the position of the radical left that their mission was wrecking institutions to deny them to Republicans rather than governing.

Once that was done, the radical left could unveil arguments such as, “The United States Senate is a Failed Institution”. Much like our system of elections and every other part of our government.

The radical left’s goal is to convince its natural base that our system of government is illegitimate. It knows that this can’t be limited to the theoretical level of ideology. Instead it must radicalize by demonstrating it. It does not seriously believe that President Trump will be removed from office by the 25th Amendment or any other aspect of the system. Instead it is feeding these fantasies so that when they fall through those on the left who believed in them will be further radicalized by their failure.

And Democrats have become complicit in the radical left’s program to bring down the government.

They have normalized the radical leftist position that our system is illegitimate. They have moved into the second phase of the left’s program of demonstrating that illegitimacy through confrontation. The final phase is to overthrow the system through actions ranging from protests to terrorism.

This is Cloward-Piven institutional sabotage on a whole other scale. The goal is to collapse our entire system of government. And the Democrats have climbed on board with it using President Trump as a pretext. But regardless of which Republican had won, the end result would have been the same.

The left makes its opposition to the Constitution, the election process and the rule of law into a crisis. And then it uses that crisis to demand a new system. It has pursued this approach successfully in local areas and in narrower causes. This is not the first time that it has embarked on such a project on the national level. But this is the first time that it has the full support of a major national political party.

And that is the true crisis that we face.

The left’s endgame is a totalitarian state. Its “moderates” pursue one by peaceful means only so long as they are allowed to hijack the system. When an election fails to go their way, the radicals brandish it as proof that the system has failed and that violent revolution is the only answer.

But what was once the obscure behavior of a deranged political fringe has become the mainstream politics of the Democrats. The Resistance theme shows that the radicals have won. The Democrats haven’t just fallen to the left. They have fallen to the radical left which believes in overthrowing our system of government through conflict and confrontation rather than covertly engineering change.

The Democrats have become a terrorist party. And their commitment to a radical revolution has plunged our political system into chaos. The left is now exactly where it wanted to be.

And a civil war has begun.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266380/resistance-democrats-are-terrorist-party-daniel-greenfield Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Another Obama lie exposed.

The Obama administration claimed that it negotiated with Syria and Russia to eliminate "100 percent" of Syria's chemical weapons. After President Barack Obama's 2012 "red line" warning to Syria about using chemical weapons, Syria launched a chemical attack in August 2013. But U.S. military action was avoided by the alleged Russian/American/Syrian diplomatic accomplishment, achieved without "firing a shot." Here's what we were told:

President Obama, on April 28, 2014: "We're getting chemical weapons out of Syria without having initiated a strike."

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., crowed on June 1, 2014: "We're getting the chemical weapons out of Syria." And Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., chimed in July 6: "We should commend the administration for the result that they got."

Then-Secretary of State John Kerry, on July 20, 2014: "We got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out (of Syria)."

President Obama, on Aug. 18, 2014: "Today we mark an important achievement in our ongoing effort to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction by eliminating Syria's declared chemical weapons stockpile."

Kerry on Oct. 31, 2014: "We ... cut the deal that got 100 percent of the declared chemical weapons out of Syria, and people nevertheless have been critical — of one day of bombing versus the virtue of getting 100 percent of the chemical weapons out of Syria."

Kerry reiterated the accomplishment on Feb. 24, 2015, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "We got, as you know, last year, all the chemical weapons out of Syria."

True, Bloomberg reported on May 13, 2015: "The U.S. government was informed months ago that an international monitoring body found traces of chemical weapons that President Bashar al-Assad had promised to turn over, including sarin gas — a clear violation of the deal he struck with President Obama after crossing the administration's 'red line' two years ago.

"Officials from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the Obama administration early this year that its inspectors had found traces of two banned chemical weapons during an inspection of the Syrian government's Scientific Studies and Research Center in the district of Barzeh near Damascus, two administration officials told us. A report by Reuters May 8 said that OPCW inspectors had found traces of sarin and VX nerve agent at the site in separate inspections in December and January."

After the Bloomberg story, then-White House press secretary John Earnest initially admitted: "We're aware that the OPCW continues to receive credible allegations that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is still taking place." But a month later, on June 17, 2015, Earnest responded: "(Syria's) declared chemical weapons stockpile that Assad previously denied existed has now been acknowledged, rounded up, removed from the country and destroyed precisely because of the work of this administration and our successful efforts to work with the Russians to accomplish that goal."

But Susan Rice, then Obama's national security adviser, on Jan. 16, 2017, said, "We were able to find a solution that didn't necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished. ... We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile."

After last week's chemical weapons attack that left nearly 100 Syrians dead, former Obama advisers now say they always knew that not all of chemical weapons were eliminated — and that turning over all their weapons is not exactly what tyrants tend to do.

Antony J. Blinken, a former deputy secretary of state, recently said, "We always knew we had not gotten everything, that the Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration."

Michael McFaul, Obama's former ambassador to Russia, said, "For me, this tragedy underscores the dangers of trying to do deals with dictators without a comprehensive, invasive and permanent inspection regime."

Tom Malinowski, an assistant secretary of state for human rights under Obama, laments: "The difficult and debatable choice the Obama administration ... made not to use military force when Assad last used nerve gas against his people (in 2013) will shape our thinking about this and similar crises for a long time to come. The lesson I would draw from that experience is that when dealing with mass killing by unconventional or conventional means, deterrence is more effective than disarmament."

This brings us the Obama's Iran deal that allegedly prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Why should we believe that Obama was any less duped here than when he claimed the elimination of "all" of Syria's chemical weapons?

We shouldn't.

Larry ElderSource: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266402/obama-claimed-all-syrias-chemical-weapons-had-been-larry-elder Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Campus fascists silence Heather Mac Donald.

Not long ago, I submitted an essay to a think tank that exists for the sake of exposing the problems of contemporary higher education. In the essay, I drew attention to the phenomenon of intimidation, threats, and overt violence to which both students and faculty alike who are deemed insufficiently “progressive” are increasingly subject. I argued that, for all practical purposes, faculty and administrators are doing little to nothing about it. In fact, in some instances, they are encouraging it.

My submission was rejected on the grounds that, allegedly, I failed to substantiate my thesis.The person with whom I exchanged emails, a likable guy, passed along this news from his boss, the editor. I replied that, given the nature of the topic as well as the space constraints (1,000-1,200 words), I presented the only sort of evidence that is forthcoming: anecdotal evidence from colleges small and large, public and private, and from various areas of the country.

Yet I also noted two other considerations that, I believe, should have sufficed to make my point.

First, these attacks continue to happen on a regular basis.

Second, I invited readers to engage in a thought experiment. I implored them to imagine that it wasn’t (mostly) white, Christian, conservative, Republican, and moderate students who were being assailed but, rather, students who are non-white, non-Christian (particularly Muslim), feminist and female, gay, and/or transgendered. And I asked them to imagine that their attackers belonged to that group that is currently, in reality, under siege.

Can there be any question in anyone’s mind, I continued, that this phenomenon would be national, possibly international, news? Is there any doubt that faculty and administrators would cancel classes, hold rallies, conduct marches, i.e. repeatedly shout from the rooftops that they had zero tolerance for these “hate crimes?”

Can there be any doubt that those who they would condemn as “haters” would swiftly be expelled or, at the very least, forced to attend “sensitivity” classes?

These questions are rhetorical, for everyone, and no one more so than the average reader of this publication that rejected my essay, knows that the answers to them are no-brainers. That, in the real world, we have neither seen nor heard anything remotely resembling these sorts of responses to the demonization of white conservative students is a stone-cold fact that should speak for itself.

For example, Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald, a white woman who has written multiple books on policing, crime, and race, recently had her speech at UCLA disrupted by Black Lives Matter agitators. Mac Donald had been invited to deliver her speech, “Blue Lives Matter,” by the Bruin Republicans. However, it wasn’t long after she opened the floor to a question-and-answer session that the organized disruptors became unruly.

According to The College Fix, an attorney who specializes in free speech violations at publically financed colleges and universities, William Becker, recorded the whole event before escorting Mac Donald off of campus. “Many students, including a number of black students, attended solely to disrupt the event,” he said. “A cluster of black students remained seated during the Pledge of Allegiance. Three students were well prepared to disrupt the event.”

Becker says that not only did he capture the fiasco on video; he has photographs of it as well.The disruptors chanted: “Black lives—they matter here! Black lives, they matter here!”

They also shouted, “America was never great!”

The disruptors were not interested in dialogue, for they were either unwilling to so much as understand Mac Donald’s comments or incapable of doing so. Instead, they shouted such pearls of wisdom as: “I don’t trust your numbers!” “Bullshit!” “What about white terrorism?” “You have no right to speak!”

Mac Donald’s “Blue Lives Matter” speech fared much worse at Claremont McKenna College, where some 250 Black Lives Matter thugs practically shut down the event. To repeat, these were not “protesters” or “demonstrators.” They were thugs. What else should we call people who banged on windows; hurled obscenities; shouted, “Shut it down!”; prevented those who were interested in hearing MacDonald from attending the event by blocking entrances; and assaulted attendees and even those who were simply trying to interview the disruptors?

For safety reasons, Mac Donald had to livestream her speech to a mostly empty room. The police urged her to cut her talk short and, when she was finished, multiple officers had to escort her off campus.

Subsequently, the Vice President of Academic Affairs at CMC, Peter Uvin, sent out a school-wide email of the sort that we have come to expect.

First, he qualified his condemnation of the thuggery by claiming that “250 persons” did watch Mac Donald deliver her speech. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, for even if it was 1,000 people who were able to watch her, they had to do so electronically, via video, and not in person, as they had intended. They were stopped from seeing her live, as Uvin then acknowledges when he claims that “we are of course disappointed that people could not attend the lecture.”

Yet his inclusion of this proposition further weakens the rest of his statement—which is weak enough as it is.

The actions of the disruptors made “it impossible for her [Mac Donald] to speak, for you to listen, and for all of us to debate. This we could not accept.”

If you expect for this declaration of Uvin’s to be followed by an announcement of the penalties that the disruptors would now be forced to face, you will be disappointed. Instead, he assures the perpetrators that he understands their pain, for “in a world of unequal power, it is more often than not those who have a history of exclusion who are being hurt by words.” Uvin wants for them to know that he “fully understand[s] that people have strong opinions and different—often painful—experiences with the issues [that] Heather Mac Donald discusses.”

Ask yourselves: If it was, say, black leftist Cornel West who was supposed to give a speech at, say, Hillsdale College, and white conservative students did to West what these BLM thugs did to Mac Donald, is it remotely fathomable that the school would offer the qualified, formulaic reply that Claremont McKenna College delivered?

You know the answer.

And my thesis, that administrators have failed to address the treatment that their conservative students have been made to endure at the hands of leftists, is proven in spades.

Jack KerwickSource: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266401/aided-and-abetted-student-brown-shirts-and-their-jack-kerwick Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

This comes as the Democratic National Committee considers Minnesota
Congressman Keith Ellison, the only Muslim in Congress who has deep
ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, for the position of SNC Chairman.

It is a rule of thumb in contemporary politics that you should not mention Hitler in any context. Democrats and liberals regularly compare Republicans and conservatives with Nazis, but for the GOP, the MSM will make sure it backfires with round-the-clock selective righteous indignation.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s inarticulate invocation of Hitler in the context of Syrian sarin gas attacks was meant to condemn the use of such weapons, the operative word here, in war against civilian or even military targets. As Spicer meant to say, even the evil Hitler never dropped sarin gas bombs on London. The Nazis feared retaliation in kind. Spicer meant to justify our cruise missile retaliation. Spicer is aware of the Holocaust and [t]he millions who perished in the ovens and the gas chambers and in ghoulish medical experiments. He did not mean to excuse these atrocities, but to condemn the Syrian and Russian version.

Spicer’s remarks have met with calls from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the usual liberal suspects for Spicer’s resignation. Yet Pelosi and et al see no problem with embracing the anti-Semitic likes of Al Sharpton, an Obama adviser, or Rep. Keith Ellison, deputy chair of the DNC.

The mainstream media, having failed to derail or even anticipate Donald Trump’s victory, have now seized on attempting to discredit various Team Trump members. They started with one of the architects of his victory, calling Navy veteran, entrepreneur, and Breitbart publisher Steve Bannon a “white nationalist.” They cite as evidence some Breitbart headlines designed to provoke and attract readers as being beyond the pale. Compared to what? The New York Times, perhaps?

Publishers don’t necessarily control every jot and tittle of content in their publications, but if one concedes the point of Bannon’s critics, those who have problems with Bannon advising Trump had no problem with race-baiter Al Sharpton serving as advisor to President Obama on, of all things, race relations: AsPolitico magazine reported:

A few days after 18-year-old Mike Brown was gunned down in Ferguson, Missouri, White House officials enlisted an unusual source for on-the-ground intelligence amid the chaos and tear gas: the Rev. Al Sharpton, a fiery activist who became a household name by provoking rather than pacifying….In Ferguson, Sharpton established himself as a de facto contact and conduit for a jittery White House seeking to negotiate a middle ground between meddling and disengagement. “There’s a trust factor with The Rev from the Oval Office on down,” a White House official familiar with their dealings told me. “He gets it, and he’s got credibility in the community that nobody else has got. There’s really no one else out there who does what he does.”

Let us be grateful for that. If one wanted to send a sane message about justice and peace, Al Sharpton is arguably the worst person to call. He is an instigator, not a peacemaker, someone who rose out of obscurity by propagating the false Tawana Brawley rape case in which New York law enforcement officials were accused of raping a black teenager. As Investor’s Business Daily noted, Tawana Brawley paid for her part in that big lie. Al Sharpton never has.

Sharpton embraced the “hands up, don’t shoot” mantra meant to indict racist cops and police departments after the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri after he committed a strong-arm robbery on his way to assaulting Officer Darren Wilson. Blessed are the peacemakers, but Al Sharpton is not one of them.

The Sharptons of the world don’t want to solve the real problems of the black community, preferring to exploit back unrest with clueless race-baiting such as when Sharpton and his National Action Network organized

“You thought you’d sweep it under the rug. You thought there’d be no limelight,” he said. “We are going to keep the light on Michael Brown, on Eric Garner, on Tamir Rice, on all of these victims because the only way — I’m sorry, I come out of the 'hood -- the only way you make roaches run, you got to cut the light on."

As IBD notes, Al Sharpton has made career of anti-Semitic and racial agitation:

Sharpton has made a career of racial incitement. He once called Jews "diamond merchants" and described whites moving businesses into Harlem as "interlopers."He helped incite three days of anti-Semitic rioting in 1991 in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, turning a tragic traffic accident into a riot where two people died and more than 100 were wounded.Then there was Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem in 1995, subject to the Sharpton campaign to drive out "interlopers." To scare the Jewish owner away, Sharpton turned a tenant-landlord dispute into a racial conflict, resulting in arson of the store and seven deaths.

So the liberal left was okay with Sharpton, but thinks Steve Bannon is a “white nationalist” who threatens all human decency? This comes as the Democratic National Committee considers Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, the only Muslim in Congress who has deep ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, for the position of SNC Chairman. As the watchdog group Jihad Watch reports:

Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”

It gets worse. In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.

Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

Abedin also has some interesting family connections. Her father is said to be close with the Saudi government's Muslim World League, and her mother is said to be a member of the Muslim Sisterhood. World Trade Center bombing prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review: "The ties of Ms. Abedin's father, mother and brother to the Muslim Brotherhood are both specific and substantiated."The Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt with the Obama administration's approval after it had all but abandoned the government of Hosni Mubarak, a long-time ally and friend. It was while Abedin was advising Hillary that State dropped its long-standing policy of having no dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood.

As Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review, Huma Abedin’s family and work history suggested a devotion to Islamic supremacist ideology that may go a long way to explaining our imploding Middle East policy from Baghdad to Egypt:

Ms. Abedin worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic-supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef ran the Rabita Trust, a formally designated foreign terrorist organization under American law. Ms. Abedin and Naseef overlapped at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) for at least seven years. Throughout that time (1996–2003), Ms. Abdein worked for Hillary Clinton in various capacities.

The Democratic Party also had no problem with venerating former KKK member Robert Byrd or with Hillary Clinton’s admiration for Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, whose objective was the extermination of the black race. They are quiet about the racism of the Orwellian-named Black Lives Matter movement or that Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats.

Steve Bannon is not a white nationalist. Sean Spicer is not an anti-Semite. They are patriotic Americans. Their only real crime is getting Donald Trump elected President of the United States.

Daniel John Sobieskiis a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/spicer_bannon_critics_okay_with_antisemitic_sharpton_and_ellison.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

So what is going on?

According to several sources, North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un has ordered 600,000 people to evacuate the capital city of Pyongyang. The report originally appeared in Pravda, but a reporter for Channel News Asia tweeted that foreign journalists have been told to prepare to move out of the capital – without their cell phones.

Reports in Russian newspaper Pravda Report claim more than 600,000 people – around 25 per cent of the city's population – are being urgently evacuated, as tensions escalate between North Korea and the United States.According to South Korean media, residents in the kingdom have said goodbye to each other, sparking concerns the tyrannical leader could be about to act after months of nuclear weapon testing.Foreign reporters have been told to prepare for a "big and important event" on North Korea's biggest national celebration, called 'Day of the Sun'.A tweet from Channel NewsAsia's Beijing Correspondent Jeremy Koh said: "We've been told to be ready to move out at 6.20am, but no idea why. Also, no cell phones allowed."More than 200 foreign journalists are in Pyongyang as the country marks the 105th birthday of its founding president Kim Il Sung on April 15.Officials in North Korea have already warned nuclear war could break out at any minute thanks to the "extremely tense" situation on the Korean Peninsula.The US sent a navy strike group towards the Western Pacific in a show of force, with North Korea retorting with warnings of a nuclear attack in retaliation to any show of aggression.China has also moved 150,000 soldiers close to the North Korean border in preparation for war.The move comes after president Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airfield in response for the country's brutal chemical attack which left 79 civilians dead.North Korean officials have given no clues as to the nature of the "surprise event" or where it would take place.However, past announcements of a similar nature have turned out to be relatively low-key.

2. China has moved 150,000 troops to Korean border to handle an expected flood of refugees if an attack occurs.

3. Kim has threatened to use nukes if provoked.

4. Reporters are being told to expect a "big event," while some reports – perhaps not reliable – claim that Kim has ordered the partial evacuation of the capital.

Taken together, the signs are ominous. But should these stories be understood as being part of a pattern? Or is the juxtaposition of all this information a coincidence?

Certainly, prudence demands the former. But if you've read Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August," you might recognize that it's entirely possible that the confluence of events could easily lead to misinterpretation, and what seems bellicose or ominous as part of a pattern is actually separate reactions to similar events.

Nothing takes place in a vacuum, of course. But we may be reading too much into what's really happening in North Korea. Intelligence reports indicate that Kim may be readying another nuclear test to coincide with the North's national holiday, the "Day of the Sun," which honors the birth of North Korea's founder, Kim Il-sung. Or Kim may be about to order another missile test. Either event could be misinterpreted and lead to war.

So even if there's nothing really ominous about these events, tensions are so high that a misunderstanding or an error could let loose the dogs of war on the Korean peninsula.

Rick MoranSource: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/04/report_kim_orders_evacuation_of_noko_capital.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

There remain significant areas of disagreement, but on the whole, positive and cautiously optimistic

U.S.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's visit to Moscow on April 11-12, 2017
came against the backdrop of a recent U.S. missile strike on a Syrian
airbase that was followed by political tensions between Russia and the
U.S.[1]
At the G7 meeting in Italy just prior to his trip to Moscow, Tillerson
had stated: "I think it’s also worth thinking about Russia has [sic]
really aligned itself with the Assad regime, the Iranians, and
Hizbullah. Is that a long-term alliance that serves Russia’s interest,
or would Russia prefer to realign with the United States, with other
Western countries and Middle East countries who are seeking to resolve
the Syrian crisis? We want to relieve the suffering of the Syrian
people. We want to create a future for Syria that is stable and secure.
And so Russia can be a part of that future and play an important role,
or Russia can maintain its alliance with this group, which we believe is
not going to serve Russia’s interest longer-term. But only Russia can
answer that question."[2]

Commenting on Tillerson's words, Russia
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said: "It's useless to
come to us with ultimatums, it's just counterproductive."[3] However, the meeting between Tillerson and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov changed Russia's internal mood.Maxim Usim, columnist for the Russian daily Kommersant,
noted that Tillerson's language was not confrontational and that this
had enabled him to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin just
before his departure from Moscow.

The following are reactions to U.S. Secretary of State Tillerson's Moscow visit:

Senator Kosachev: "The American Did Not Come With Absurd Proposals…None Of The Parties… Have A Desire To Further Exacerbate The Situation"

Russian Federation Council International
Affairs Committee chairman Konstantin Kosachev wrote on his Facebook
page: "The first impression is quite positive. No breakthrough occurred,
and no one expected it. However, the two sides were able to avoid the
temptation of the overstated expectations, and the modest results of the
meeting are still positive." Kosachev stressed that a meaningful result
was the Russian and U.S. commitment to maintaining the dialogue by
"institutionalizing it in the format of special representatives."

He added: "The two sides now have a better
understanding of the possible and impossible limits in the prospects
for bilateral relations and in the interpretation of international
problems. The Americans obviously did not come with some absurd
proposals similar to exchanging (Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad) for
G7 membership, Ukraine for Syria and so on, and also not only with
moralizing and ultimatums."

He stressed: "Otherwise, the meeting
with (Russian President Vladimir Putin) would have not taken place, as
wasting time on empty words is not his style."

Kosachev also said that Russia "unambiguously
confirmed its willingness to restore cooperation, provided that the two
sides could do without the notorious American mentoring and arrogance. Anyway,
none of the parties seems to have a desire to further exacerbate the
situation, and everyone believes that it is not hopeless."

Maxim Usim, a columnist for the Russian daily Kommersant,
wrote that Tillerson's meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov was not confrontational, but rather business oriented. According
to Usim, Tillerson avoided using harsh language regarding Russian
policies, while Lavrov was reserved and diplomatic. The impression,
wrote Usim, is that both sides want to minimize the damage to bilateral
relations by "Trump's Syrian escapade," adding that the mere fact that
Tillerson avoided "speaking in terms of sanctions and ultimatums" made
the meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin possible.

(Kommersant.ru, April 12, 2017)

Izvestia: "The First Attempt To Get Along May Be Considered Productive, Even If Not Fully Successful"

The Russian daily Izvestia
summarized Tillerson's the visit as follows: "The most important thing
is that during this very short but very intense visit the sides
succeeded in reaching an agreement regarding further steps to be taken
in order to get rid of the bilateral crisis. At the same time, the
visit's message to the world was: The first attempt to 'get along' may
be considered productive, even if not fully successful."

(Izvestia.ru, April 13, 2017)

Duma International Affairs Committee Chairman: "There Was No Ultimatum"

Duma International Affairs Committee
chairman Leonid Slutsky stated: "One of the visit's results is the
failed prognosis regarding some kinds of U.S. ultimatum. There was no
ultimatum. On the contrary, the sides agreed on establishing a joint
group in order to look into the most complicated questions of the
Russia-U.S. agenda."

(Tass.com, April 12, 2017)

Tillerson:
"We want to relieve the suffering of the Iraq... Ouch... Liby...
Ouch... Syrian people." The cartoon was published prior to Tillerson's
visit. (Ria.ru, April 11, 2017)

Senator Klintzevich: "It Is Now Obvious That Tillerson's Visit Was Not A Waste Of Time"

Senator Franz Klintsevich, deputy chair of
the Federation Council Defense and Security Committee, commented: "It
is now obvious that Tillerson's visit was not a waste of time.
Reiterating the mutual commitment to fight international terror is the
maximum which could have been achieved, given the recent negative
developments. At the moment, it's quite stupid to discuss who won and
who lost as the result of the meeting, who saved face and who lost
face... The sides opted for mutual compromise, but as a result they
secured the chance to really cooperate against ISIS. That's what is
really important."

(Tass.com, April 12, 2017)

Ivan Melnikov, Communist Party,
Vice-speaker of Duma: "Given the unpredicted U.S. actions influencing
the situation, we may judge only by the deeds rather than by the words
and intentions. Mr. Tillerson leaves good impression, and speaks
respectfully about Russia as a superpower – but what if the principles
of the American imperialism remain in force?"

(Tass.com, April 12, 2017)

Ruling Party United Russia MP Sergey
Zheleznyak: "The meeting demonstrated that despite the differences, our
countries are interested in cooperation concerning various areas –
solving burning international crises as well as renewing economic
cooperation. We'll see how Tillerson's words in Moscow will coincide
with the administration's actions and then we’ll draw our conclusions."

(Tass.com, April 12, 2017)

Senator Pushkov: The Meeting Was "The Start Of Dialogue"

Senator Alexey Pushkov tweeted: "Frontal
confrontation has been cancelled. Russia and the U.S. proceed from the
war of words towards exchanging opinions, controlling the differences
and cautious dialogue."

(Twitter.com/Alexey_Pushkov, April 12, 2017)

Pushkov also tweeted: "The summary of the
negotiations in Moscow: Not yet a breakthrough, but the start of
dialogue and an attempt to strengthen the mutual trust after serious
tensions erupted."

(Twitter.com/Alexey_Pushkov, April 12, 2017)

According to a Russian Defense Ministry source quoted in the Vedomosti
newspaper, Moscow is ready for dialogue and does not consider a
dangerous direct confrontation with the U.S. to be inevitable.
Simultaneously, Moscow demonstrates its readiness to strengthen its
military positions in Syria – this is the message delivered by the
deployment of the frigate Admiral Grigorovich to the Mediterranean.